中觀論疏 8.28

8.28

長行釋聲聞、菩薩、緣覺即為三別。釋聲聞教中又二：前釋二無我教；「修習八聖道」下，次釋得益。釋二無我即二。釋人無我為三：初雙牒二我、次雙破二我、後結無二我。「若五陰是神」者，第二雙破二我。即為二別：破即陰我，為四：初正釋。「如偈中」下，第二引偈證。「何以故」下，第三解釋。解釋中又二：前以生滅二相驗五陰法體是無常；「如五陰無常」下，第二明生滅二相亦是無常。所以明二相無常者，凡有二義：一者欲顯五陰能相所相皆是無常，神與五陰一，故神亦無常。二者欲破異部，如毘婆闍提明生滅相是常，曇摩崛明滅相是常，故今明生滅二相亦是無常。「神若是五陰」下，第四總結。「若離五陰」下，第二破離陰我。亦開為四：初正破。「如偈中說」下，第二引偈證。「而離五陰」下，第三解釋。就此文凡有五破：第一責相破。「若謂神如虛空」下，第二取意破。前求神相不可得，外云：神如虛空無有相貌，故無相有神。是故今破虛空。「若謂以信故」下，第三破外人以信故證神。前責相破有法中無神，次取意破虛空法無神，即是〈顛倒品〉云「我法有以無，是事終不成。」外云：雖復空有求神不得，而終信有神，故今破其信。就文為四：初牒外義。「是事不然」下，第二總非。「何以故」下，第三釋非。就文又二：初列四信。「是神於一切信中」下，第二釋四信無神。「現事中亦無」下，釋第一現事可信。既是現事中無，不須解釋。「比知中亦無」下，釋第二比知中無神。又開二別：初略明比知中無神。「若有三種比知」下，第二廣明比知中無神。即開三別：初列三種比知。「如本」下，第二釋三種比知。第二釋中，初借人日譬示比之相貌。「如是苦樂」下，外人正舉共相比知證有神，如見人民依王下引類也。「是事皆不然」下，第三釋比知中無神。但釋第三共相比知中無神，不釋餘二比也。問：此中破共相比知與《百論》何異？答：《百論》許其將人比日，不許將人民依王苦樂覺知亦依神。今文直破，先明人與去法合，後見人即知去，此事許之。無有先見神與知合，後見知即有神，此破之也。「聖人所說中亦無」下，釋第四信無神。略不釋第三，譬喻中無神也。「是故於四信等」下，第四總結四信無神。「復次〈破根品〉中」下，五破中第四指前破。「又眼見麁法」下，第五舉況破。「是故知無我」下，是破離陰我中第四結無我。此文兩屬：一者結前離陰中無我，二者總結即離二種俱無有我。欲發起法無我，故前結人無我。「因有我故」下，釋第二法無我。「修習八聖道分」下，釋第二稟二無我教後得益。得益中本開二別：一明得二無我智益、二明得兩涅槃益。今此二則為二別。二無我益中為二：前正明得無我智、次歎法美人。今前釋初也。小乘無我在於見諦，八聖道亦在見諦，故今云修習八聖道滅我我所得無我智。大乘人無我在十住，出《攝論》也。「又無我我所者於第一義中亦不可得」者，前明世諦中無有我我所，今明第一義中亦無有我我所。故三法印云「一切法無我」。「得無我無我所」者，釋第二稱歎門。前釋上半歎法；「凡夫人」下，釋下半美人。初舉凡夫不能見、次歎聖人能見。「內外我我所」下，釋第二得二涅槃益。前釋無餘；「問曰」下，釋有餘。釋有餘中，前釋上半；「是諸煩惱」下，釋前偈下半。「實相法如是」下，此文結前生後，結前聲聞法、生後菩薩法。

The prose commentary explains the śrāvaka, bodhisattva, and pratyekabuddha, which constitute three distinct sections. Within the explanation of the śrāvaka teaching, there are also two parts: first, it explains the teaching of the two kinds of selflessness; from "practicing the eightfold noble path" onward, next it explains the attainment of benefit. Explaining the two kinds of selflessness has two parts. Explaining the selflessness of persons has three parts: first, stating both types of self; next, refuting both types of self; and finally, concluding that neither self exists. "If the five aggregates are the soul (ātman)": this is the second part, refuting both types of self. This divides into two: refuting the self that is identical to the aggregates has four parts: first, the direct explanation. From "as stated in the verse" onward, second, citing the verse as proof. From "why is this?" onward, third, the commentary. Within the commentary there are also two parts: first, using the two characteristics of arising and ceasing to verify that the substantial entity of the five aggregates is impermanent; from "just as the five aggregates are impermanent" onward, second, clarifying that the two characteristics of arising and ceasing are also impermanent. As for why the two characteristics are clarified as impermanent, there are in general two meanings: First, to show that both that which characterizes and that which is characterized by the five aggregates are impermanent; and since the soul and the five aggregates are one, the soul is also impermanent. Second, to refute heterodox schools: as the Vibhajyavādins explain the characteristics of arising and ceasing to be permanent, and the Dharmaguptakas explain the characteristic of cessation to be permanent, it is therefore now clarified that the two characteristics of arising and ceasing are also impermanent. From "if the soul were the five aggregates" onward, fourth, the summary conclusion. From "if it is apart from the five aggregates" onward, the second part refutes the self that is apart from the aggregates. This also unfolds into four: first, the direct refutation. From "as spoken in the verse" onward, second, citing the verse as proof. From "yet apart from the five aggregates" onward, third, the commentary. Regarding this text, there are five refutations in total: First, refutation by demanding its characteristics. From "if it is said that the soul is like empty space" onward, second, refutation by taking up the intended meaning. Previously, when the characteristics of a soul were sought, they could not be found; the outsider says: "The soul is like empty space, having no visual characteristics; therefore, a soul exists without characteristics." Therefore, empty space is now refuted. From "if it is said that by virtue of faith" onward, third, refuting the outsider's attempt to prove the soul by means of faith. Previously, the refutation by demanding characteristics showed that there is no soul among existent entities, and the refutation by taking up the intended meaning showed that there is no soul among empty space phenomena; this corresponds to Chapter on Errors, which says: "That my phenomenon exists or does not exist—such a thing is never established." The outsider says: "Although a soul cannot be found when sought in emptiness or existence, yet we ultimately believe there is a soul." Therefore, their faith is now refuted. This text has four parts: first, stating the outsider's doctrine. From "this is not so" onward, second, a general negation. From "why is this?" onward, third, explaining the negation. Within this text there are also two parts: first, listing the four types of faith. From "this soul, among all forms of faith" onward, second, explaining that the soul is absent from all four types of faith. From "it is also absent among present facts" onward, explaining the first: credible present facts. Since it is absent among present facts, it requires no further explanation. From "it is also absent in inferential knowledge" onward, explaining the second: that there is no soul in inferential knowledge. This again opens into two: first, briefly clarifying that there is no soul in inferential knowledge. From "if there are three kinds of inferential knowledge" onward, second, broadly clarifying that there is no soul in inferential knowledge. This divides into three: first, listing the three kinds of inferential knowledge. From "as originally" onward, second, explaining the three kinds of inferential knowledge. Within this second explanation, first it borrows the simile of a person and the sun to demonstrate the appearance of inference. From "in this manner, suffering and pleasure" onward, the outsider directly adduces inference from common characteristics to prove that a soul exists, as below where they draw an analogy to seeing people rely upon a king. From "all of these things are not so" onward, third, explaining that there is no soul in inferential knowledge. It only explains that there is no soul in the third, inference from common characteristics, and does not explain the other two inferences. Question: How does this refutation of inference from common characteristics differ from the Śata-śāstra? Answer: The Śata-śāstra concedes their comparing a person to the sun, but does not concede that just as people rely upon a king, suffering, pleasure, and consciousness also rely upon a soul. The present text directly refutes it: it is first understood that a person is joined with the action of going, and subsequently, upon seeing the person, one knows there is going; this is conceded. But there has never been a prior observation of a soul conjoined with consciousness, such that subsequently, seeing consciousness, one knows a soul exists; this is what is refuted. From "it is also absent from what the holy persons have spoken" onward, explaining that there is no soul in the fourth faith. It omits explaining the third, that there is no soul in similes. From "therefore, among the four faiths and so forth" onward, fourth, a summary conclusion that there is no soul in the four faiths. From "furthermore, in the Chapter on Refuting the Sense-Faculties" onward, the fourth of the five refutations: pointing to a prior refutation. From "moreover, the eye sees coarse phenomena" onward, fifth, refutation by adducing a comparison. From "therefore it is known that there is no self" onward, this is the fourth part in refuting the self apart from the aggregates: concluding selflessness. This text pertains to two things: first, concluding the selflessness within what is apart from the aggregates above; second, concluding that there is neither a self that is identical nor one that is apart. Wishing to initiate the selflessness of phenomena, it therefore first concludes the selflessness of persons. From "because there is a self" onward, explaining the second, the selflessness of phenomena. From "practicing the factors of the eightfold noble path" onward, explaining the second: the attainment of benefit after receiving the teaching of the two kinds of selflessness. Within the attainment of benefit, originally two divisions were opened: first, clarifying the benefit of attaining the knowledge of the two kinds of selflessness; second, clarifying the benefit of attaining the two nirvāṇas. Now these two constitute two distinct sections. Within the benefit of the two kinds of selflessness, there are two parts: first, directly clarifying the attainment of the knowledge of selflessness; next, praising the Dharma and commending the person. Here it first explains the former. In the Hīnayāna, selflessness resides in the vision of the truths, and the eightfold noble path also resides in the vision of the truths; hence it now says that practicing the eightfold noble path extinguishes self and what belongs to self, attaining the knowledge of selflessness. In the Mahāyāna, the selflessness of persons resides in the ten abodes, as shown in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. As for "furthermore, that which has neither self nor what belongs to self is also ungraspable in ultimate truth": previously it was clarified that there is no self or what belongs to self in conventional truth; now it is clarified that there is also no self or what belongs to self in ultimate truth. Hence the three Dharma seals state, "all phenomena are without self." "Attaining [the state of having] no self and no what belongs to self" explains the second section, on praise. First it explains the first half of the verse, praising the Dharma; from "ordinary persons" onward, it explains the second half, commending the person. First, it mentions that ordinary persons are incapable of seeing it; next, it praises the holy persons for being capable of seeing it. From "internal and external self and what belongs to self" onward, it explains the second, the benefit of attaining the two nirvāṇas. First it explains [nirvāṇa] without remainder; from "question" onward, it explains [nirvāṇa] with remainder. Within the explanation of with remainder, first it explains the first half of the verse; from "these defilements" onward, it explains the second half of the preceding verse. From "the Dharma of true nature is like this" onward, this text concludes what came before and introduces what follows: it concludes the preceding śrāvaka teaching and introduces the subsequent bodhisattva teaching.